{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "canonicalUrl": "https://www.simoncox.com/short-articles/2004-09-09-brandchannel-interbred/",
  "description": "Recently brandchannel.com reviewed a commercial web site that I have spent the past five years dramatically improving. The site now conforms to WAI AA standards and is fully CSS driven.",
  "path": "/short-articles/2004-09-09-brandchannel-interbred/",
  "publishedAt": "2004-09-09T00:00:00.000Z",
  "site": "at://did:plc:tki7vwlanxbwrz2er67eaeqa/site.standard.publication/3mp4h4md7zv2y",
  "tags": [
    "Opinion",
    "Web",
    "Standards"
  ],
  "textContent": "Recently brandchannel.com reviewed a commercial web site that I have spent the past five years dramatically improving. \n\nThe site in question now conforms to WAI AA standards, is fully CSS driven, has a crisp conservative design that supports its brand extremely well but the Brandchannel reviewer gave it a right good pasting because it is not pushing the boundaries that they have decided need pushing. Actually the site pushes a lot more boundaries than the brandchannel.com site itself, which is not accessible, does not use css, does not validate for html, has predictably crap design and from a company that steers large corporate marketing departments on branding and design is not a very good shop window. I mean look at those stupid animated animated lozenges. Very 1997.\n\nActually Interbrand, who run brandchannel as a sales portal, used to do a lot of work for the company reviewed but recently lost its contract - hence the potentially libellous headlines used I suspect. No bitterness there at all then... \n\nInterbrand are quickly loosing credibility as a leading light on brand direction – they may have become \"Interbred\".\n\nThis rant is my own personal opinion and is not the opinion of the company that was reviewed on brandchannel. Probably.",
  "title": "Brandchannel interbred"
}